Mumbai Court January 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2001
Reported in: (2002)82ITD531(Mum.)
1. These cross-appeals are directed against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 22nd Feb., 1990 for asst. yr. 1985-86. For the sake of convenience they are being disposed of together by this combined order.Assessee's appeal is taken up first.2. First three grounds relate to a single issue. The issue relates to disallowance of depreciation on boiler leased to Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bombay Dyeing for short) by applying the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC).3. The facts as set out by the AO and other material on record are that Bombay Dyeing had placed an order for an efficiency with ISGEC John Thomson (ISGEC' for short) in July, 1982, through their engineering consultants Tata Projects Ltd, for a total cost of Rs. 165 lakhs. The boiler was to be installed at Patalganga for the DMT project of Bombay.The commissioning of the boiler was to be completed by March, 1984, as p...
Marawthwada Wakf Board Vs. Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR211
S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The brief background of the second appeal is that the respondent No. 1 namely Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri claims that he had purchased property being suit house situated at Manwath Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani from one Amirkhan by a registered sale deed dated 4-9-1961 for Rs. 6,000/- . The said Amir Khan had purchased the said property from one Jamalbi widow of Sharfuddin by registered sale-deed dated 11-1-1940.2. The appellant herein namely Marathwada Wakf Board had issued a notification dated 5-9-1974 wherein at Sr. No. 19 in addition to the Masjid Chowk and grave yard, a house along with 3 shops which were purchased by the respondent No. 1, were included as Wakf property.3. The respondent No. 1, who had purchased the said property from said Amir Khan on 4-9-1961 and has been continuously in possession of the said house property and shops, aggrieved by the said Government Gazette Notification threatening his title to his property, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 145/19...
Shri Kalpesh Suhas Pawar Etc. Vs. Mah. State Board of Secondary and Hi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Bom168; 2001(2)ALLMR96; 2001(2)BomCR670; 2001(2)MhLj910
Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith by consent.Heard both sides.All these petitions can be disposed of by acommon order as they involve similar issues.2. Briefly stated the petitioners in the respective writ petitions were pursuing their studies in respondent No. 2 Junior College. The petitioners submitted an application for permission to appear in standard XII examination conducted by the 1st respondents. The said forms were duly accepted. Thereafter the petitioners were informed by the respondent No. 1 that they had not fulfilled the requirement of minimum attendance of 75% and they should ensure that they complete the minimum attendance by attending all classes till the end of the term. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were issued hall tickets to appear for the XII standard examination to be conducted in May, 2000. It is stated that oh the basis of some complaints the Board enquired into the matter and took decision that the results of the petitioners shall not be ...
Wipro Limited Vs. S.M. Tripathi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR813; 2001(2)BomCR799
V.K. Barde, J. 1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and it is engaged in manufacture of Vanaspati, Soaps, etc. The factory of the petitioner is situated at Amalner (District : Jalgaon).2. The petitioner has contended that the Vanaspati means the vegetable oil subjected to the process of hydrogenation in any form. Vanaspati is manufacture out of several raw oils, such as, Soya bean Oil, Palm Oil, Rapeseed Oil, Cotton Seed Oil, etc. Vanaspati being an edible product, it is deemed to be essential commodity within the meaning of section 2(a)(v) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and, therefore its production, supply and distribution is being controlled under the said Act. The Central Government prescribed limits of usage of imported oil in the manufacture of Vanaspati. Originally the imported oil was used at a minimum of 10 per cent. However, said percentage was increased from time to time. The respondent No. 2 State Trading Corporation of Ind...
Homi Nariman Bhiwandiwala Vs. Zoroastrian Co-operative Credit Bank Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR352
A.B. Palkar, J.1. This is a suit for damages filed against a Co-operative Bank known as Zoroastrian Co-operative Credit Bank and the Zoroastrian Association on the ground that the Bank refused to allow the plaintiff to operate the joint account held by the plaintiff jointly with one Pestonji Jehangirji Bharucha.2. According to the plaintiff, said Pestonji Jehangirji Bharucha had a joint saving bank account with him bearing No. 1269 and a Fixed deposit account bearing No. 10513 in which Rs. 600/- was deposited for a period of three years in the year 1985. As per the instructions, the saving bank account was to be operated by Pestonji Bharucha in his life time or by survivor in case of death. In case of fixed deposit however there was no direction that it has to be paid to the survivor. The plaintiff had admittedly filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court when he was refused to operate the said saving bank account. In that suit, the plaintiff had taken out Notice of Motion and on conc...
Polaroid India Private Limited Vs. Nav Nirman Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR657; (2001)2BOMLR145; (2001)1CompLJ415(Bom)
ORDERDr. D, Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The present company petition came to be admitted by a Judgment delivered on 7th March. 2000. An appeal was preferred by the respondent Company against the order of admission which came to be heard anddisposed of by an order of the Division Bench dated 5.6.2000. Before the Division Bench, it was argued on behalf of the respondent Company that the maintainability of the petition for winding up was sought to be contested on the ground that the winding up in the present case was sought in respect of the affairs of a registered partnership, something which according to the petitioner was not permissible under the provisions of Part X of the Companies Act, 1956. The maintainability of the petition had not been challenged at that stage before the learned single Judge and having regard to the question of law, which was pleaded, the Division Bench while allowing the appeal directed that the petition be heard afresh on all points including the point which was rai...
Shilpa S. Shetty Vs. Magna Publications Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Bom176; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)272; 2001ALLMR(Cri)587; 2001(2)BomCR649; (2001)3BOMLR134
ORDERH.L. Gokbale, J.1. Plaintiff is a film actress of some standing. Defendant No. 1 is a Publishing House. Defendant No. 2 is its Director and 3rd defendant is the Editor of a Film Journal brought out by the 1 st defendant under the name of 'Stardust' and defendant No. 4 is one of the contributors and reporters of that Journal. The present suit makes a grievance that three articles published in November and December 2000 and January 2001 Issues of this Journal, which are annexed at Exhibits 'A', 'B' and 'C' to the plaint, are per-se defamatory, false and malicious to the plaintiffs character. Hence this suit is filed to seek damages of Rs. 20 Crores. The plaintiff has also taken out a Notice of Motion seeking to restrain the defendants from in any way or manner carrying out defamatory allegations and imputations in future against the defendants.2. Mr. Maneshinde has appeared for the plaintiff and has drawn my attention to the statements made in the three articles. These statements ar...
Ghatge Patil Industries Limited Vs. Dattaraya Gangaram Lokhande and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR151]; (2001)ILLJ1553Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Taken up on Board for final hearing and heard forthwith.2. The Petitioner, by the present Petition, impugns the Award dated June 6, 2000 passed by the Labour Court at Kolhapur in Reference (ID) Nos. 26 and 27 of 1983. By the said Award the Labour Court has directed the Petitioner herein in lieu of reinstatement to pay compensation equal to 40 months' wages to each of the workmen with continuity of service and 60% of back-wages and other consequential benefits, till the date of payment of compensation with costs of Rs. 1,000/- to each workman.3. The respondents herein were charge sheeted for alleged misconduct. An Enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer gave his findings. The Competent Authority concurred with the findings and thereafter were pleased to dismiss the Respondents from their services. It is against this, that an Industrial Dispute was raised and a reference made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the charge...
Mrinal Namdev Waghmare Vs. Smt. Reva Nayyar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1583; 2001BomCR(Cri)631; 2001CriLJ1141
B.P. Singh, C.J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, Mrinal Namdev Waghmare, claiming to be a friend of the detenu, Manivannan Mahadevan alias Ruben, a foreign national, for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of the detenu, who has been detained by Respondent No. 1, the Detaining Authority, under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, the PITNDPS Act) by an Order dated 30th September, 1997 with a view to prevent him from engaging in the possession, concealment, transportation and illicit drug trafficking of narcotic drugs.2. This Writ Petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. By an Order dated 7th and 8th September, 1999, the Division Bench has referred the matter for being placed before a larger Bench for resolving the apparent conflict between two decisions of this Court in Rafiq Abdul Karim Merchant v. Rajendra Singh : 1998(2)MhLj496 and Babulal ...
Patel Investments Vs. Credential Finance Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2001
Reported in: [2001]105CompCas13(Bom)
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The present petition for winding up has been filed in respect of certain sums of money advanced by the petitioners to the company under a bill rediscounting facility on May 16, 1996, May 22,1996, and August 19,1996. The company issued letters of confirmation in token of having received the demand draft from the petitioners and purported to enclose post-dated cheques in various amounts to the petitioners. The cheques, which were issued, were dishonoured. According to the petitioners, the petitioners thereafter, addressed a letter on August 19, 1996, to the company by which there was a roll over of the bill rediscounting facility for a further period of 90 days. Together with the said letter, another post-dated cheque came to be enclosed by the company.2. The petitioners issued a statutory notice for winding up on February 25, 2000, and in reply thereto, there was a letter addressed on March 11, 2000, by the company. By its letter dated March 11, 2000, the company ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »